To add to my previous post, I'd say for most surface morphometric work, structured light for bones is the best way-is much faster than laser and generally less noisy. Most are fairly portable (i.e. Peli case packable). Resolution is fairly comparable, it's mainly the software that differs. Best, Tom On 2 Feb 2015 22:24, "Aki Watanabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dennis, > > I've used NextEngine for scanning fossils-from long bones to more complex > structures like vertebrae. I find the resolution to be excellent for the > cost and scan time. Some people find the merging/stitching function in the > associated program ScanStudio to be not as precise as other programs, so > what we do is export individual scans (i.e., scan = each time we move the > specimen on the platform) and then merge and process them in GeoMagic. We > have the basic setup for NextEngine, so the turntable is small which > prohibits us from scanning large specimens. I'm not sure if NextEngine > offers larger turntables. > > My advisor and I also tested some hand-held surface scanners about 2 years > ago (including the Zscanner > http://www.zcorp.com/documents/175_ZScanner%20800%20Website.pdf), and we > generally found more noise in the scans than we'd hoped. For example, fine > teeth in a small dinosaur looked muddled. It's been two years since, so it > is possible that the resolution and noise have been improved dramatically. > But my impression 2 years ago was that the handheld scanners were not quite > up to scientific standards. > > I hope this helps! > > Cheers, > Aki > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:56 PM, dslice <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anyone have any experience or recommendations for a high-resolution, >> table-top 3D scanner? >> >> I am wanting to apply for a university equipment grant to get a scanner >> for my lab (and anyone else who might need to scan). This will be in >> collaboration with bio and archaeological and art researchers. These grants >> usually run about $40kUSD. >> >> It seems the popular NextEngine scanner (~6000USD with all the extras) >> has a resolution of approx. 0.1-0.3mm. That would be fine for my stuff - >> method development and human-sized bones, but my bio colleagues deem that >> inadequate for their needs - mouse-sized bones. We can get high-res from >> microCT, but that takes forever - about a day per scan and the files are >> huge, e.g., >30GB. >> >> Similarly, the Artec Spider (22,600USD) has a resolution of 0.1 mm. It >> promises some advantages of hand-held scanning, which would benefit my >> archaeological colleagues, but I am hearing from users it might not be so >> great in actual usage. Not sure if it supports a turntable/table-top >> operation option. >> >> So, does anyone have any suggestions? >> high-resolution >> portable (might need to travel with it) >> fast, easy table-top operation >> <$40kUSD >> >> -ds >> >> -- >> MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> > > > > -- > Aki Watanabe > Doctoral Candidate > Division of Paleontology > Richard Gilder Graduate School > American Museum of Natural History > Central Park West at 79th Street > New York, NY 10024 > website: https://sites.google.com/site/akinopteryx/ > twitter: @akiopteryx > > Google Glass project: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yh6R8rup58&list=PLrfcruGtplwHCoLvvxKq1Bq-XkbO3tclr > > -- > MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > -- MORPHMET may be accessed via its webpage at http://www.morphometrics.org To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
